Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm just curious, because I think anyone that wants more than one spouse is clinically insane, but what is the compelling state interest in banning polygamy?
Anti-gay marriage threads often list this as a potential "slippery slope" consequence of permitting gay marriage (along with a lot of other things that are just ridiculous).
Why should the government care if people want to be in a "plural marriage?"
Please don't respond with "because it changes the traditional definition of marriage", because that's just not really an argument.
The slippery slope argument isn't applicable. Marriage is a legal, government sanctioned contract between two people. Traditionally, this has only been between a man and a woman because of a traditional discrimination that existed in our society. Changing marriage to be blind to things like race and sex is removing a bias.
Marriage has never been a contract between many people. That's a very big difference.
Personally, I don't think Polygamy should be illegal. People should do what they want. Whether states should recognize these or companies should have to give benefits to multiple spouses is a different story.
Having watched Big Love, I can't imagine how someone would want that many family issues to deal with.
Technically we don't. The government doesn't legislate morality, it provides legal protections to citizens. Murder is not illegal because it's immoral, it's illegal because it deprives other citizens the right to life, liberty, or property without due process. So while it may appear that we legislate morality, it has more to do with legal implications and state interest than morals, as morality is subjective.
Things like a drinking age of 21 and "vice" taxes and laws are all our books. There are all sorts of people that believe it would benefit society to legalize certain drugs or prostitution.
Doesn't the patriarchal nature of societies explain that? The fact that women in most cultures have always been inherently inferior to men seems to explain why women would rarely have multiple husbands.
I think it explains most of history in that context, but I dimly recall that there were matriarchal and even polyandrous societies in pre-history.
Things like a drinking age of 21 and "vice" taxes and laws are all our books. There are all sorts of people that believe it would benefit society to legalize certain drugs or prostitution.
Yes, and the burden is on those opposing legalization of a thing to show how it is a compelling state interest for it to be illegal (at least, that's how it's supposed to work in theory.)
How would it work logistically in terms of taxes and benefits? Marriage is currently designed for two people, not more than two. No one is born "polygamous"; unlike being gay, being a polygamst is a choice.
Polygamy generally promotes abuse of women, children, and young men by older men and promotes poverty.
In addition, the countries where polygamy is legally recognized are not the type of places I'd want to use as a model any of our laws.
Good point, but what issues would it create that we couldn't get around with legislation? Certainly administrative inconvenience is not a good excuse for regulating people in a way that seems to not really fit into the First Amendment.
Quote:
Hammertime has pointed it out before, but if a military veteran married multiple women, he would get multiple spousal bonuses that 2 person couples don't get.
Again a good practical concern, but it is one that can be fixed, and even so, is it really a "compelling state interest." If those women weren't married to and getting benefits from that spouse, why wouldn't they be married to another and get the same benefits? Doesn't it all total out the same? Aren't we providing the same level of benefits to all married spouses regardless of whether they are in a monogamous marriage or not?
If those women weren't married to that spouse, they would either be married to someone else or not at all. If married to someone else, there's no guarantee they would be married to a veteran and getting veteran's benefits. If not married at all, they wouldn't be getting any spousal benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper
Wrong, the sister-wives step in, no need for gov't intrusion.
Yes, and the burden is on those opposing legalization of a thing to show how it is a compelling state interest for it to be illegal (at least, that's how it's supposed to work in theory.)
The State must be able to assert some level of control over marriage to further the proliferation of social unions our society deems beneficial while discouraging those deemed harmful.
"The people of this State have declared monogamy a beneficial marital form and have also declared polygamous relationships harmful. As the Tenth Circuit stated in Potter, Utah “is justified, by a compelling interest, in upholding and enforcing its ban on plural marriage to protect the monogamous marriage relationship.”
“[Utah] has a compelling interest in prohibiting conduct, such as the practice of polygamy, which threatens [monogamous marriage].”
"Utah's ... commitment to prevent polygamous behavior has undergirded this State's establishment of a vast and convoluted network of laws based exclusively upon the practice of monogamy as opposed to plural marriage.”
"The practice of polygamy often coincides with crimes targeting women and children. Crimes not unusually attendant to the practice of polygamy include incest, sexual assault, statutory rape, and failure to pay child support.”
No.
----------------------
I understand some will find those words ignorant, outdated, bigoted, and want gov't. to say A-ok to anything consenting people want to do. Ain't gonna happen with polygamy.
Only really "uninformed" people would equate filthy perverted pedophiles who hide behind god as the same as two adults , of any sex, getting married to each other...
You're assuming an older person who marries a younger person is a pedophile.
Why is that?
You're simply proving the judgemental attitude I mentioned.
Nowhere did I suggest pedophilia in any unions concerned.
Why female polygamy is so rare is an interesting issue .
I'm thinking there's a biological basis at the heart of it.
One woman can still only get pregnant (thus letting the species go on) by one man at a time.
One man can impregnate each of his, say, 4 wives around the same time, ensuring a more successful continuance of his genes.
Then again, a biological reason for man/woman marriage doesn't hold for many of you
(and I mean BASIC biology, not when certain individuals are infertile)
so I suppose it shouldn't matter to some.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
